# C_2018427EN.01008301.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/83

---

Action brought on 11 September 2018 — YL v Commission

(Case T-545/18)

(2018/C 427/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YL (represented by: P. Yon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul his removal from the 2017 promotions list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul his removal from the 2017 promotions list;

| — | order his retroactive promotion as from 1 January 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

order his retroactive promotion as from 1 January 2017;

| — | award him compensation for the damage — estimated in the amount of EUR 100 000 — suffered as a result of the contested measures: the number of days and amount of energy expended in respect of the present action and preparation thereof, overcoming the feeling of being rejected, ostracised and persecuted by an authority supposedly required to have regard to the welfare of its members of staff and have, if not a benevolent attitude towards them, then at least a neutral one; |
| --- | --- |

—

award him compensation for the damage — estimated in the amount of EUR 100 000 — suffered as a result of the contested measures: the number of days and amount of energy expended in respect of the present action and preparation thereof, overcoming the feeling of being rejected, ostracised and persecuted by an authority supposedly required to have regard to the welfare of its members of staff and have, if not a benevolent attitude towards them, then at least a neutral one;

| — | order the reimbursement of his lawyer’s and legal fees in the amount of EUR 10 000, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of his lawyer’s and legal fees in the amount of EUR 10 000, and

| — | order the Commission to bear all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the appointing authority when it based its refusal to promote the applicant on a previously imposed penalty, when that penalty had already affected the applicant’s career by a relegation in step. Moreover, the contested decision was allegedly adopted on the ground that the penalty was related to the applicant’s conduct while on active duty, whereas the decision to impose a penalty of 2016 indicated that the acts in question were totally unconnected to the applicant’s duties and responsibilities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the appointing authority when it based its refusal to promote the applicant on a previously imposed penalty, when that penalty had already affected the applicant’s career by a relegation in step. Moreover, the contested decision was allegedly adopted on the ground that the penalty was related to the applicant’s conduct while on active duty, whereas the decision to impose a penalty of 2016 indicated that the acts in question were totally unconnected to the applicant’s duties and responsibilities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging abuse of powers and process by the appointing authority when it used its power of promotion to increase the penalty imposed in 2016 and used the promotion procedure to circumvent the limits provided for in the Staff Regulations in the event of deferment of advancement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging abuse of powers and process by the appointing authority when it used its power of promotion to increase the penalty imposed in 2016 and used the promotion procedure to circumvent the limits provided for in the Staff Regulations in the event of deferment of advancement.

---